NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

An Overview of 

Aviation Fuel Markets 

for Biofuels Stakeholders

Carolyn Davidson, Emily Newes, Amy Schwab, 

and Laura Vimmerstedt

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-60254

July 2014
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

An Overview of 

Aviation Fuel Markets 

for Biofuels Stakeholders

Carolyn Davidson, Emily Newes, 

Amy Schwab, and Laura Vimmerstedt

Prepared under Task No. BZ11.3008

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-60254

July 2014
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Zia Haq and Alicia Lindauer of the U.S. Department of 

Energy for their support of analyses of potential biofuels markets. Bruno Miller (Metron 

Aviation), Kristin Lewis (U.S. Department of Transportation), Seth Snyder (Argonne National 

Laboratory), and Damian Blazy (Oliver Wyman) offered helpful discussions of the aviation fuel 

industry. We thank the reviewers, including those listed above and Nancy Young, Steve Barker, 

and John Heimlich (A4A); James Hileman and Nathan Brown (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration); and Anelia Milbrandt and Mike Talmadge 

(National Renewable Energy Laboratory) for their comments on draft versions of the report.
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

CO2 carbon dioxide

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FBO fixed-base operator

FT Fischer-Tropsch

GHG greenhouse gas

HEFA hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids

MJ megajoule

n.d. no date

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PADD Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts

WTI West Texas Intermediate
v

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

This report is intended for biofuels stakeholders who are interested in, but unfamiliar with, the 

U.S. aviation industry and, in particular, the aviation fuel market. It provides an overview of the 

state of the aviation fuel industry, targeting background information for evaluating the potential 

of biofuels in aviation. This scope includes trends in jet fuel price, airline responses to fuel price 

increases and volatility, and environmental goals for aviation fuels in relation to the potential for 

biofuels. The overview of the aviation fuel industry includes production, distribution, and 

consumption of aviation fuel, and it outlines players in the aviation fuel supply chain.

Jet fuel has accounted for approximately 10% of U.S. petroleum refinery production for the past 

two decades. Production is concentrated by company and geographic region, with Exxon Mobil, 

Chevron, and BP among the top producers and Texas, Louisiana, and California among the top 

producing states. Refiners’ decisions about jet fuel production volumes encompass purchasing 

capital equipment, selecting crude oil, and producing the desired type and quantity of products. 

Biomass-based jet fuel production at scale would need to enter this supply chain.

Distribution of jet fuel in the United States primarily involves transport from the Gulf Coast to

other regions. Transportation of refined petroleum products (which include jet fuel) is 

accomplished via pipeline (60%), ocean-going tankers and barges on inland waterways (30%), 

tanker trucks (5%), and rail (5%). At each airport, fuel supply chain organization and fuel 

sourcing could differ with regard to the role of oil companies, airlines, airline consortia, airport

owners and operators, and airport service companies.

Major jet fuel purchasers are airlines, general aviation operators, corporate aviation, and the 

military, with most of the jet fuel in the United States being used for domestic, commercial, and 

civilian flights carrying passengers, cargo, or both. Commercial aviation fuel efficiency has 

improved dramatically over time, largely due to aircraft and engine upgrades and operational and 

air traffic control improvements. This has resulted in an overall decline in U.S. jet fuel 

consumption during the past decade.

The report addresses historical and projected fuel price trends, as well as airline strategies to 

mitigate price risk. Jet fuel prices generally correlate with prices of crude oil and other refined 

petroleum products, such as diesel. Increasing prices and the persistent price volatility of jet fuel 

markets impact airline industry finances in the United States. Jet fuel represents the single largest 

operating expense for airlines (approximately one-third of airline operating costs), and fuel price 

increases are not readily passed on to consumers. 

Airlines use various strategies to manage aviation fuel price uncertainty, including financial 

hedges, increased vertical integration, and adjustments in aircraft utilization and size.

Investments in alternative aviation fuel could be a mechanism to diversify exposure to the price 

of petroleum. While the first set of strategies aims to manage the current petroleum-based 

aviation fuel price, the use of alternative aviation fuel would serve to diversify the fuel mix. If a 

diversified fuel mix were to decrease fuel price volatility or reduce long-term fuel price 

increases, potential benefits include reduced hedging costs, increased price certainty, and 

lessened fuel costs. This diversity could allow airlines to become more consistently profitable 
vi

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and to make other investments in their business. The potential of biofuels to reduce fuel price 

volatility or long-term fuel price increases is not evaluated here.

The report outlines the environmental basis for considering biofuels for aviation, but it does not 

quantify the environmental effects of different options or otherwise evaluate these opportunities. 

The aviation industry has established goals to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions for a variety 

of reasons, notably regulatory and financial risks. These goals target carbon neutral growth 

starting in 2020.

Biofuels have potential to meet aviation industry needs, possibly including managing risks of 

upward fuel price trends and fuel price volatility and risks associated with greenhouse gas 

emissions. The aviation industry has taken steps to explore this potential through participation in 

alternative aviation fuel research, development, and demonstration. Initial steps toward using 

biojet include development of standards. Biofuels that currently have ASTM standards for 

aviation use include fuels based on two processes: Fischer-Tropsch (FT) and hydroprocessed 

esters and fatty acids (HEFA). Standards development is underway for other processes, and 

biofuels are being used in demonstration flights.

The aviation fuels market could use biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate

long-term upward price trends, fuel price volatility, or both. This report offers a background on 

the aviation industry, primarily for biofuels stakeholders with an interest in environmental, 

economic, and financial potential.
vii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Overview of the Aviation Fuel Industry.............................................................................................. 3

2.1 Production of Jet Fuel ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Distribution of Jet Fuel .................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Consumption of Jet Fuel ................................................................................................................ 12

3 Jet Fuel Prices .................................................................................................................................... 17

4 Airline Fuel Price Risk Mitigation...................................................................................................... 21

5 Environmental Concerns and Aviation Biofuels............................................................................. 25

5.1 Commitments to Reduced Emissions ............................................................................................ 25

5.2 Relative Emissions of Aviation Biofuels....................................................................................... 26

5.3 Certification and Demonstration of Biojet..................................................................................... 29

5.4 Analytic Gaps ................................................................................................................................ 34

5.4.1 Market Potential.............................................................................................................. 34

5.4.2 Comprehensive Benefits Analysis.................................................................................. 34

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 36

References................................................................................................................................................. 37

List of Figures

Figure 1. Historical trends and current share of refinery production by product in the 

United States......................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Percent of jet fuel supplied by companies in the United States............................................ 5

Figure 3. Jet fuel charge capacity by PADD, 2004–2012......................................................................... 6

Figure 4. Percent of state-level refinery production dedicated to jet fuel (left) and percent of 

total jet fuel produced by each state (right) in 2012 ......................................................................... 6

Figure 5. Crude oil movements (millions of gallons) by PADD in 2012 ................................................ 7

Figure 6. Kerosene-type jet fuel transported between PADDs by pipeline, tanker, and barge .......... 9

Figure 7. Refineries, crude, refined petroleum pipelines, waterways, airports, and biomass 

resources in the United States.......................................................................................................... 10

Figure 8. Total U.S. aviation fuel consumption by flight classification, 2000–2012........................... 13

Figure 10. Energy efficiency metrics, 1990–2010 .................................................................................. 15

Figure 11. Aviation fuel cost and consumption for domestic travel, 2000–2012 ............................... 16

Figure 12. Comparison of projections for available seat-miles and fuel consumption from the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Energy Information Administration (AEO) ...... 16

Figure 13. Spot prices for Gulf Coast kerosene-type jet fuel and West Texas Intermediate 

(WTI) crude oil, 1990–2013 (top) and spot prices for a various petroleum products, 

2011–2013 (bottom)............................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 14. Comparison of projections for jet fuel price from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).................................................................................. 19

Figure 15. Airline fuel expense and hedging summary, fiscal year 2003 versus 2012...................... 22

Figure 16. Fuel and oil costs versus profits for U.S.-based airlines, 2002–2010 ............................... 23

Figure 17. Aviation industry emissions targets and measures to achieve......................................... 26

Figure 18. Biojet supply chain ................................................................................................................. 30

List of Tables

Table 1. Operational Characteristics of the U.S. Airline Industry .......................................................... 3

Table 2. Comparison of Jet Fuel Production, Product Supplied, and Consumption, 2003–2012..... 13

Table 3. Relative Life Cycle GHG Emissions from Conventional Jet and Biojet Fuels, 

Normalized to Conventional Jet Emissions Rate............................................................................ 28

Table 4. Biojet and Alternative Jet Fuel Contracts Executed by the U.S. Department of Defense... 32
1

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

Biofuels—fuels made from biomass—for aviation fuel markets could have the potential to 

address needs and objectives of both biofuels and aviation stakeholders. This report is intended 

to provide a snapshot of the aviation industry and its fuel market for biofuels stakeholders who 

may be unfamiliar with the U.S. aviation sector but are interested in whether and how biofuels 

might enter the aviation fuel market. The report does not assess the technical aspects or 

production potential of biofuels for aviation, nor does it address in detail other alternative 

aviation fuels or combinations of biofuels with fossil fuels.

Biofuels have potential to meet aviation industry needs, possibly including managing risks of 

upward fuel price trends and fuel price volatility and risks associated with greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions. The aviation industry has taken steps to explore this potential through 

participation in alternative aviation fuel research, development, and demonstration. Through 

these activities, additional potential benefits of biofuels have been identified, such as chemical 

properties that could improve fuel performance or complement other alternative fuels. Public and 

private initiatives have targeted goals for biofuels in aviation, including support of national 

goals, a Federal Aviation Administration volumetric goal, and goals of the Commercial Aviation 

Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), as described in the Farm to Fly report (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture et al. 2012). The CAAFI summarizes actions that the aviation industry might take to 

advance development of aviation biofuels (Miller and Heimlich 2013). The International Air 

Transport Association regularly tracks the status of alternative aviation fuels (International Air 

Transport Association 2013).

For the biofuels industry, aviation fuel markets could provide an outlet for biofuels producers 

that might be attractive relative to current markets. Today, the single largest domestic biofuel is 

ethanol, which is blended into motor gasoline for cars and trucks. However, ground 

transportation biofuel markets face declining gasoline sales, limits on ethanol blending in 

gasoline, market risks for higher ethanol blends and hydrocarbon fuels, and competition from 

non-liquid fuels (natural gas, battery-electric, or fuel-cell hydrogen-powered vehicles). Aviation 

fuel markets are likely less vulnerable to competition from non-liquid fuels (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture et al. 2012) because the benefits of greater energy density of liquid fuels are 

substantial in aviation due to the energy efficiency implications of hauling the fuel itself and the 

physical constraints of airplane design and performance. Another feature of aviation fuel markets

that is relevant to biofuels producers is the concentration of jet fuel demand at major airport hubs

(U.S. Department of Agriculture et al. 2012). This concentration could simplify supply chain 

control and logistics, potentially facilitating biofuels supply to these locations, although possibly 

also raising concerns about market power of the fuel purchasers. The challenges to biofuels 

entering aviation fuel markets are numerous and significant and include business and financial 

risks of delivering a specialized, highly regulated fuel at a competitive price to a financially 

volatile industry. Neither these potential benefits nor the challenges are assessed in detail in this 

report. The CAAFI provides guidance about the development of this business, including airline 

requirements for fuels purchases and discussion of business risks (Miller and Heimlich 2013).

It could be technically feasible for the U.S. biofuels industry to grow sufficiently to supply a 

significant share of U.S. jet fuel and to diversify its production into the jet fuel market. The 

biofuels industry as well as government efforts are pursuing growth strategies; for example, the 
2

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S. Department of Energy’s Multi-Year Program Plan (Bioenergy Technologies Office and 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 2013) provides one summary of a government 

biofuels program. Policy and technology progress could influence the future development of the 

U.S. biofuels industry. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) established a 

target of 36 billion gallons per year (860 million barrels) of renewable liquid transportation fuel 

in the United States by 2022 (U.S. Congress 2007). New technology could enable an advanced 

biofuels industry based on conversion of cellulosic biomass. Products of an advanced biofuels 

industry could include hydrocarbons that can be integrated into existing petroleum-based jet fuel 

delivery systems (Bioenergy Technologies Office and Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy 2013).

Jet fuel has accounted for approximately 10% of U.S. petroleum refinery production for the past 

two decades after a generally increasing trend from the 1950s through the 1980s (Energy 

Information Administration 2012b, Table 5.8). Production and consumption of jet fuel have both 

decreased in the past decade, and the decrease in consumption, even as total domestic air miles 

have continued to increase is due to increased fuel efficiency (Energy Information 

Administration 2013f; Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013). 

Increasing prices of jet fuel and continued price volatility pose challenges for the U.S. airline 

industry, with real prices nearly tripling from approximately $1.30/gallon in 2000 to

approximately $3.00/gallon in 2012 (Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013).

Prices are sufficiently volatile that many airlines seek to mitigate fuel price risks through various 

financial measures, such as fuel price hedging. In addition to the challenge of increasing and 

volatile fuel prices, the aviation industry faces environmental concerns associated with aviation 

fuel, including air quality impacts and GHG emissions. Concerns about climate change have 

prompted regulatory measures in Europe and industry commitments to reduce emissions

(Meltzer 2013). The use of biofuels could help address these concerns.

Using biofuels for aviation has the potential to offer a new market for the biofuels industry, 

while easing financial and environmental challenges in the aviation industry. The overall market 

size and the structure of the aviation fuel supply chain shape the opportunity for biofuels. 

Understanding the basics of current production, distribution, and consumption of aviation fuel 

could help analysis of whether and how biofuels could be used. In addition, effects of biofuels on 

price and price volatility in the aviation fuel market would be a critical consideration for their 

adoption. This report provides a background on these topics. It offers an overview of the aviation 

fuel market (Section 2), including basic information for considering biofuels entry into the 

aviation fuel market: an overview of production, distribution, and consumption in the current 

aviation fuel industry, as well as descriptions of market participants. The report addresses 

historical and projected jet fuel price trends (Section 3), as well as airline strategies to mitigate to 

price risk (Section 4). It outlines the financial and social basis for interest in biofuels in aviation

(Section 5), but it does not address the technical, economic, or market potential of biofuels in 

that market. It also does not evaluate costs and benefits of biofuels for aviation, which would 

include environmental as well as financial and economic metrics. The conclusions (Section 6) 

offer perspectives on the opportunities and challenges outlined in the report.
3

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Overview of the Aviation Fuel Industry

The aviation fuel industry in the United States includes production, distribution, and 

consumption that together support aviation operations as summarized in Table 1. This section 

describes the participants and operations of these systems of production (Section 2.1), 

distribution (Section 2.2), and consumption (Section 2.3). These participants and operations

could adopt or potentially be affected by the adoption of biofuels in aviation fuel markets.

Table 1. Operational Characteristics of the U.S. Airline Industry

Characteristic Number Year of Data

Location of

Data in Source

Major air carriers 19 2011 Table 1.2

Certificated airports 547 2011 Table 1.3

Air carrier aircraft 7,028 2011 Table 1.13

Departures 9,345,013 2012 Table 1.37

Enplaned revenue passengers 685,102,804 2012 Table 1.37

Revenue short tons 12,144,337 2012 Table 1.37

Source: Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2014a

2.1 Production of Jet Fuel

The United States produces more than 22 billion gallons of jet fuel annually. Total domestic 

biofuel production for all uses is on the same order of magnitude as jet fuel production. Domestic 

biofuel production in 2012 was equivalent to 1.24 quadrillion Btu (14 billion gallons) or 43%, 

based on energy content, of the aggregate U.S. airlines’ jet fuel product supplied (Energy 

Information Administration 2014b).

1

The aviation fuel market includes jet fuel and aviation gasoline. Jet fuels are classified into two 

types: kerosene-type (carbon number distribution between 8 and 16) and naphtha-type (carbon 

number distribution between 5 and 15). Jet A and Jet A-1, kerosene-type jet fuels, are the fuel 

types most commonly used in commercial aviation and are produced to an international 

specification (Chevron Global Aviation 2006). JP-8 is used for military operations and is similar 

to Jet A-1, although many military operations are beginning to switch to commercial jet fuel 

(Wood 2013). Jet B and JP-4 are classified as naphtha-type jet fuels and are not used as widely 

as their kerosene-type counterparts. Aviation gasoline is also used in smaller aircraft, but it 

comprises only about 1% of the total aviation fuel market (Federal Aviation Administration 

2013). Biofuel standards for aviation fuels target kerosene-type jet fuel, hereafter referred to as 

biojet.

Crude oil2 is processed into various products at petroleum refineries, with shares of production 

shown in Figure 1. Heavy crude oil (with greater shares of higher carbon number compounds) is 

generally less expensive to purchase than light crude but requires more expensive processing to 

produce higher-value, lower-carbon-number products, such as jet fuel. Various types of 

 1 Product supplied is considered a proxy for total consumption and will be discussed further in Section 2.3. 2 Crude oil naturally varies in composition, with regard to the distribution of molecules by carbon number, the types 

of hydrocarbons (e.g., alkanes), and the presence of elements other than hydrogen and carbon, such as oxygen 

and sulfur.
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

equipment are used to process crude petroleum into desired products. Refiners must make 

decisions about purchase of crude oil and capital equipment, as well as operational decisions 

about which processes to run and at what capacity. These decisions take into account price and 

chemical characteristics of different available crude oils, the cost of running different equipment, 

and the cost of investing in new equipment. Biojet production would involve similar decisions 

and at large scales could affect the operations of existing refineries in their production of 

conventional jet fuel. 

Figure 1. Historical trends and current share of refinery production by product in the United States 

Source: Energy Information Administration 2014, Table 3.2 

Note: Data were converted from thousand barrels/day to billion gallons/year.

 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Refinery Production (billion gal/yr)

48%

25%

13%

8%

3%

2%

Percent of Refinery

Production by Product

2013

Refinery Product

Motor Gasoline

Distillate Fuel Oil

Other Petroleum Products

Jet Fuel

Liquified Petroleum Gas

Residual Fuel Oil
5

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The top five U.S. refiners by jet fuel production are Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Valero, and 

Marathon Petroleum Group, which together account for roughly 50% of total U.S. jet fuel 

production (Figure 2). In many cases, the energy company refines jet fuel from crude oil and 

distributes the jet fuel to consumers. 

Figure 2. Percent of jet fuel supplied by companies in the United States

Source: Energy Information Administration 2012a

In other cases, oil companies work with distributors or marketers to supply fuel to buyers; for 

example, Shell works with Eastern Aviation Fuels (Eastern Aviation Fuels, Inc. 2010). In 

addition, there are several independent suppliers of aviation fuels (e.g., Epic Aviation, Avfuel, 

and Chemoil Aviation). Morgan Stanley, who had historically dealt with futures and derivatives 

and not fuel on a physical basis, began selling and trading fuel on a physical basis in 1986; in 

2003, United Airlines chose to use Morgan Stanley to supply all of its jet fuel (Davis 2005). 

Distribution of jet fuel is discussed in Section 2.2. 

As of 2012, the total capacity for kerosene-type jet fuel production in the United States was just 

less than 23 billion gallons per year, with the largest output from the Gulf Coast regional 

Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD), given the high refinery capacities

located in Texas and Louisiana (Figure 3). In many states, the production of jet fuel comprises a 

large portion of total refinery products output (Figure 4). The geographic pattern of biofuel 

production is different from jet fuel production because biorefineries are located near their 

biomass resource base, primarily in the Midwest.

12%

10%

10%

10%

8%

50%

Kerosene and Jet Fuel Production by Corporation

Exxon Mobil

Chevron

BP

Valero Energy

Marathon Petroleum

Other Corporations (n = 22)
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

Figure 3. Jet fuel charge capacity by PADD, 2004–2012 

Charge capacity refers to the “input (feed) capacity of the refinery processing facilities.” 

Source: Energy Information Administration 2013d 

Figure 4. Percent of state-level refinery production dedicated to jet fuel (left) and percent of total 

jet fuel produced by each state (right) in 2012 

The color white indicates those states without jet fuel production, according to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). 

Source: Energy Information Administration 2013d 

Catalytic Hy

drotreating,

Kerosene-type Jet Fuel Charge

Capacity (billion gal/stream yr)
7

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2.2 Distribution of Jet Fuel

The crude oil transport and jet fuel distribution system provides the critical links between import 

or crude oil extraction locations, refinery locations, and jet fuel consumption. For the potential 

entry of biofuels into the jet fuel distribution system, important considerations include overall 

geographic patterns of production and consumption, fuel compatibility with distribution system 

components, non-fuel contamination, cross-contamination among different fuels, and logistical 

considerations for fuel handling during transfer and blending. Insertion points of biocrude or 

biofuel into the jet fuel supply chain, and compatibility with that supply chain, would determine 

how easy or difficult it might be to enter into the distribution system. Section 5.2 provides 

information regarding some of these biofuel-specific issues.

In general, for petroleum products, import, extraction, and refining are all concentrated in the 

Gulf Coast, although development of resources in the northern plains and Canada, as well as 

other domestic resources, has shifted the geographic distribution of import and extraction. Jet 

fuel consumption is distributed across the country, concentrated at major urban airports. The 

transportation networks that are used to connect import or extraction to refining and refining to 

consumption reflect these historical patterns, and they are adapting to new resource locations. 

Use of biojet would rely upon, and influence the future development of, these networks.

Crude oil can be transported long distances to refineries. The majority of jet fuel (62%) is refined 

within the PADD where it is used, so most cross-region transport occurs as crude oil before 

refining (Energy Information Administration 2013e; Energy Information Administration 2013b). 

Figure 5 shows an example of crude oil flows among PADDs for 2012 and demonstrates that the 

only major exporting region is PADD 3.

Figure 5. Crude oil movements (million gal) by PADD in 2012

Source: Energy Information Administration 2013b

East 

Coast 

(PADD 1)

Midwest 

(PADD 2)

Gulf Coast 

(PADD 3)

Rocky 

Mountain 

(PADD 4)

West 

Coast 

(PADD 5)

69

152

224

4308

1420

170

14,743

25

3431

226
8

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

For the 38% of jet fuel production that is not refined within the PADD where it is used but is 

imported and exported across regions, jet fuel distribution data for the United States is shown in 

Figure 6. Export by PADD is shown in the top panel, with much larger exports occurring from 

the Gulf Coast than any from other region. For the top four exporting regions, destination of the 

export (importing region) is shown by PADD in the lower four panels. These data are plotted at 

the monthly level, which shows seasonal volatility as well as other month-to-month volatility,

such as inventory or production variations. Transportation routes largely flow from the Gulf 

Coast to other regions, highlighting the national importance of Gulf Coast refineries.

Many of the largest jet-fuel-producing refineries are located near large airports. After being 

refined from crude oil, jet fuel is typically transported to airports in batches (tenders3), which can 

regularly exceed 400,000 gallons. The fuel can be shipped directly from the refinery to the 

airport fuel storage facility, though often it is stored in an intermediate storage facility. Jet fuel is 

more likely transported from the intermediate storage facility via a dedicated jet-fuel pipeline or 

tanker truck. Smaller airports are more likely than larger ones to rely tanker trucks. Due to their 

large volume, the majority of tenders are transported by pipeline (Chevron Global 

Aviation 2006).

Various means are used to transport crude oil and refined petroleum products, including liquid 

jet fuel. Transport of refined petroleum products occurs via pipeline (63%), water carriers (26%),

tanker truck (5%), and rail (5%) (Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2014a).

Jet fuel falls within the refined petroleum product, but data are not available on the share of jet 

transport by transportation method and by leg (refinery to intermediate storage, storage to 

airport). Figure 7 provides an overview of select transportation networks and destinations, 

showing pipelines and navigable waterways, as well as refineries and airports. The figure also 

includes select data on biomass resources that could be converted to biomass-based aviation fuel, 

illustrating that the geographic locations of these resources differ from the locations of the 

current fuel system.

 3 Tenders can originate from one refinery or multiple refineries operated by multiple companies whose products

meet the same specifications.
9 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

Figure 6. Kerosene-type jet fuel transported between PADDs by pipeline, tanker, and barge 

Y-axes have different scales. 

Source: Energy Information Administration 2013b

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

PADD 1 - East Coast - Exports

(million ga/yrl)

12% of PADD 1 production

was exported in 2012

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PADD 2 - Midwest - Exports

(million gal/yr)

13% of PADD 2 production

was exported in 2012

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

PADD 3 - Gulf Coast - Exports

(million gal/yr)

69% of PADD 3

production was exported

in 2012

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PADD 4 - Rocky Mountain -

Exports (million gal/yr)

3% of PADD 4 production

was exported in 2012

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Year

0

200

400

600

800

Total Exports

(million gal/yr)

38% of total U.S. production was exported

from one PADD to another in 2012

Exporting (left) or

Importing (below) Region

East Coast (PADD1)

Midwest (PADD2)

Gulf Coast (PADD3)

Rocky Mountain (PADD4)

West Coast (PADD5)
10

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 7. Refineries, crude, refined petroleum pipelines, waterways, airports, and biomass 

resources in the United States 

Sources: Homeland Security Infrastructure Program 2012; Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration 2014a, Table 1-44; Energy Information Administration 2013d; U.S. Department of 

Energy 2013
11

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Pipelines are the least expensive and most commonly used method to transport refined petroleum 

products (Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2014a) and by far the dominant 

method for jet fuel delivery to airports (Airlines for America 2014d). Typically, pipelines are 

owned by different entities than refineries. While in some cases pipelines are specifically 

designated for jet fuel, typically they are multiproduct pipelines that handle a wide variety of 

liquid petroleum products (Sera 2009). Pipeline routes are determined based on demand patterns; 

routes are shown in Figure 7. Increased crude oil production in the United States in the last 

several years has filled most pipelines to capacity. Building new pipeline infrastructure is a 

lengthy and expensive process; as a result, new crude oil supply often relies on existing rail and 

waterway infrastructure. Rail carloads of petroleum increased 40-fold between 2008 and 2013

(Association of American Railroads 2013).

Barges and oceangoing vessels are also used to transport petroleum products. When pipeline 

transport is not an option, barges on waterways are the second-most efficient and cost-effective 

means to transport refined petroleum products; one 15-barge tow can carry as much cargo as 216 

rail cars or more than 1,000 trucks (Toohey 2013). Roughly one-quarter of refined petroleum 

product ton-miles are transported by water carriers (Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration 2014a). Barge transportation relies on the U.S. inland waterways transportation 

system, an 11,000-mile network that includes 27 waterways operated and maintained by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Private barge carriers contract with refineries to transport refined 

petroleum products (including jet fuel). Barge transport is particularly prevalent for jet fuel in 

New England (Gibbs 2012). Figure 7 displays the U.S. inland waterway network. 

Refined petroleum products transported by rail use specialized tank cars typically owned by 

independent, private tank car supply and service companies, rather than by common carriers 

(railroad owners) or fuel companies (Union Tank Car Company 2013; TTX Company 2013).

Generally, tanker trucks only transport jet fuel from intermediate storage facilities to airports—

typically smaller airports—because this mode is only economical when transport quantities are 

small (Janić 2011).

As jet fuel is received in storage, it is filtered and tested according to ATA Spec 103 (“Standard 

for Jet Fuel Quality Control at Airports”) protocols for several potential contaminants, including 

water and particulates. At some large commercial airports, fuel can be transported to gates via 

underground pipelines and dispensed through a hydrant system. Another alternative to refuel 

aircraft is to transport fuel to the waiting aircraft. The fuel is again filtered as it is released into 

the hydrant system or into the fueling trucks, and another filtration occurs as the fuel is dispensed 

into the aircraft fuel tanks (Chevron Global Aviation 2006, pp.74–76).

Before the 1980s, the distribution and storage of fuel at major airports was handled by major oil 

companies, many times with their own distribution systems to service specific concourses. This 

setup was monopolistic, prevented airlines from seeking new sources of fuel, and resulted in 

higher costs for the airlines. In the mid-1980s, many airlines formed consortia to seek a more 

competitive option. New joint ventures purchased the oil company distribution systems at some

airports, leased the property and right-of-ways from the airport authority, financed the 

acquisitions and improvements, and managed the fuel infrastructure and operations. Joint venture 
12

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

members split the cost of acquiring, maintaining, and operating the infrastructure based on each 

member’s consumption (Sturtz and Smith 2010).

Airlines typically prefer to source their fuel through contracts with fuel suppliers that deliver fuel 

to an airport’s fuel farm. Fuel farms are managed by fixed-base operators (FBOs),

4 on behalf of 

airports or airlines (Airport Cooperative Research Program 2012). At large hub airports, airlines 

purchase separate tenders from more than one supplier, partially to reduce risk arising from 

supply interruptions (e.g., natural disasters and fuel infrastructure problems). In general, 

contracts have a length of 1–2 years and specify the delivery point, volume, and price (Miller and 

Heimlich 2013).

This section has summarized the transportation systems that biojet would need to enter to serve 

aviation markets, with the exact transportation implications of biojet influenced by overall 

geographic patterns of production and consumption, compatibility and insertion point decisions, 

contamination risks, and logistical considerations.

2.3 Consumption of Jet Fuel

As was discussed in Section 2.1, domestic production of jet fuel topped 22 billion gallons in 

2012. However, the consumption of jet fuel can vary, depending on imports and exports of the 

fuel. Table 2 contains a summary of jet fuel production, product supplied, and consumption by 

major players in the last 10 years. Domestic fuel consumption by U.S. carriers was just over 17 

billion gallons in 2012 (Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013). Jet fuel 

purchasers include airlines, FBOs, airport owners and operators, corporations with flight 

departments, operators of crop dusters and helicopters, and the military. Airlines and other users 

at airports are, by far, the largest buyers of jet fuel. Figure 8 shows jet fuel consumption for 

major consumers. The domestic and international classifications include U.S. carriers with at 

least $20 million in revenue per year, so these data do not include general aviation or corporate 

aviation. Therefore, the totals are lower than what is reported by the EIA as product supplied, 

which is considered a better estimation of overall consumption (Energy Information 

Administration 2014a). 

 4 Fixed-base operators are airport service centers responsible for aircraft services, such as passenger handling, 

aircraft fueling, parking, maintenance, charters, rentals, flight training, and de-icing.
13 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

Table 2. Comparison of Jet Fuel Production, Product Supplied, and Consumption, 2003–2012 

Year 

Jet Fuel 

Production 

(billion gallons) 

Jet Fuel 

Product Supplied 

(billion gallons) 

Jet Fuel 

Consumption 

(billion gallons) 

2003 22.812 24.195 22.559 

2004 23.714 25.055 23.723 

2005 23.697 25.739 23.877 

2006 22.703 25.032 23.967 

2007 22.196 24.871 24.132 

2008 22.887 23.651 22.976 

2009 21.407 21.358 21.137 

2010 21.734 21.947 21.371 

2011 22.210 21.851 21.449 

2012 22.548 21.492 20.611 

Source: Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013b; Defense Logistics Agency 2013; 

Energy Information Administration 2014b; Energy Information Administration 2013d 

Historically, the airline industry has been the largest consumer of U.S. jet fuel—with domestic, 

commercial flights accounting for over half of consumption. During the past decade, jet fuel 

consumption has decreased by around 18% for both the military and domestic flights, but 

consumption for international flights has increased by around 28% (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Total U.S. aviation fuel consumption by flight classification, 2000–2012 

Source: Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013b; Defense Logistics Agency 20135

 

5

 The reported amount of consumption of jet fuel by the military is approximate because fuel can be taken out of 

storage at any time. Jet Fuel Consumption (million gal)
14

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Data on jet fuel usage by airport show the geographic distribution of the potential target market 

for biojet. Figure 9 shows Jet A dispensed to all users (commercial, non-commercial, passenger, 

freight) by airport for select airports. Related estimates can also be made using either public 

sources (Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2014b; Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration 2014c) or private sources (e.g., “PlaneStats by Oliver 

Wyman.” 2014).

Figure 9. Jet fuel consumption (Jet A) dispensed by airport in 2012 for selected airports

Source: Airlines for America Unpublished

Aviation energy efficiency has improved during the past 20 years, with greater improvements 

domestically than internationally. Metrics of energy efficiency include (1) aircraft miles flown 

per gallon, which improves as more efficient aircraft enter the fleet and can be measured in seatmiles per gallon and (2) energy intensity per passenger, which depends on both the efficiency of 

the aircraft and the share of seats that are filled and is measured in British thermal units per 

passenger-mile (Figure 10).6 Aircraft fleet upgrades and advanced flight logistic enhancements

enabled these improvements over the last 10 years as empty seats were reduced and aircraft 

fleets modernized. As airlines worked to fill planes, aircraft load factors (ratio of passengerkilometers to available-seat-kilometers) increased from an industry-wide average of 63% in 1990 

to 81% in 2011 (Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2014a). Despite improved 

fuel efficiency, total fuel costs have continued to increase (Figure 11).

 6 Data are for U.S.-owned carriers only.

PAD District Location Airport

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Jet Fuel Consumption (million gal)

East Coast New York, NY JFK

Atlanta, GA ATL

Miami, FL MIA

Newark, NJ EWR

Washington, DC IAD

Philadelphia, PA PHL

Charlotte, NC CLT

Boston, MA BOS

Gulf Coast Dallas, TX DFW

Houston, TX IAH

Midwest Chicago, IL ORD

Memphis, TN MEM

Rocky Mountain Denver, CO DEN

West Coast Los Angeles, CA LAX

San Francisco, CA SFO

Anchorage, AK ANC

Honolulu, HI HNL

Seattle, WA SEA

Las Vegas, NV LAS

Phoenix, AZ PHX
15 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

Figure 10. Energy efficiency metrics, 1990–2010 

Source: Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013a, Table 4-21 
16 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

Figure 11. Aviation fuel cost and consumption for domestic travel, 2000–2012 

Source: Research and Innovative Technology Administration 2013b 

Figure 12 shows varying projections for consumer demand and fuel consumption, as forecasted 

by the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

While both exhibit increasing trends, the FAA forecasts are higher. 

Figure 12. Comparison of projections for available seat-miles and fuel consumption from the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Energy Information Administration (AEO) 

Sources: Federal Aviation Administration 2013; Energy Information Administration 2013b 

Domestic Jet Fuel Consumption

(billion gal/yr)

Domestic Jet Fuel Cost

(nominal billion $/yr)

Available Seat-miles

(billion/yr)

Jet Fuel and Aviation Gasoline

Consumption (billion gal/yr)
17

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Jet Fuel Prices

Competitiveness of biojet with conventional jet fuel prices is critical to the prospects of biofuels 

for aviation. Historically, jet fuel price increases and volatility have both posed challenges for the 

U.S. aviation industry, raising the possibility that biofuels might help address one or both of 

these challenges.

Jet fuel prices are higher than crude oil prices and generally correlate with crude oil price trends. 

Real jet fuel price increased from approximately $1.10/gallon in 2000 to approximately 

$2.90/gallon in 2012 (2013 dollars) (Energy Information Administration 2014c). Shorter-term 

fluctuations in the price of jet fuel are highly correlated with movements in the price of Number

2 heating oil and diesel (Figure 13). Commodity markets rely on Number 2 heating oil as the 

benchmark for jet fuel because it is publicly traded. As a result, when the price of heating oil 

increases, the price of jet fuel increases. Jet fuel prices are projected to increase steadily over the 

next few decades (Figure 14). While the FAA (2013) does not project large increases, the AEO

(2013a) projects a doubling to tripling of nominal jet fuel prices by 2040—which would have 

serious implications for airline fares and, likely, profitability. 

In addition to long-term prices trending upward, crude oil price and refined petroleum product 

prices are volatile. That is, while the mean trends upwards, there is a large variation around the 

mean. Oil price volatility is often attributed to supply factors: unplanned refinery outages 

(natural and human-caused disasters),

7 pipeline problems, political instability in oil producing 

regions, limited spare production, and diversion of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (PR 

Newswire 2013). Overall, jet fuel price is determined by spot market prices, the terms of 

purchase contracts, and the location of the purchase. Other determining factors include outside 

influences, such as refinery shut downs; sudden, localized changes or seasonal shifts in demand; 

interruptions in supply (e.g., natural disasters); and market speculation and environmental 

regulations. For example, oil supply disruptions because of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005

prompted many refiners to raise production of gasoline, increasing the price of jet fuel (Airlines 

for America 2014a). Some recent increases in U.S. jet fuel prices may be a result of closing 

refineries (particularly Northeast refineries) that were key suppliers to East Coast hubs, as well 

as competition, at the margin, for refinery capacity with other refined petroleum products

(Energy Information Administration 2011). 

Various studies have explored price volatility in general and volatility of jet fuel prices in 

particular. Lee and Zyren (2007) and Regnier (2007) found that prices of crude oil, and even 

more so petroleum products, were more volatile than other products sold by U.S. producers.

 7 Many conventional refineries are located in areas prone to natural disasters (i.e., the Gulf Coast [Airport 

Cooperative Research Program 2012]). In August 2012, a fire shut down California’s second-largest refinery for 

6 months, prompting the shipment of 120,000 tons of fuel per month from South Korea to the West Coast (“Tesoro 

to Ship Jet Fuel From Asia to U.S. West Coast” 2012).
18

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 13. Spot prices for Gulf Coast kerosene-type jet fuel and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) 

crude oil, 1990–2013 (top) and spot prices for a various petroleum products, 2011–2013 (bottom)

Source: Energy Informaton Administration 2014c
19

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 14. Comparison of projections for jet fuel price from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

Sources: Federal Aviation Administration 2013; Energy Information Administration 2013b

Bacon and Kojima (2008) undertook a statistical analysis to explore whether mean prices remain 

constant over time and to examine the variance of crude oil and specific oil products in different 

periods using daily, weekly, and monthly price indices. While jet fuel pricing patterns were 

found to correlate closely with other petroleum product prices, jet fuel prices were found to be 

slightly less volatile than gasoline prices but more volatile than heating oil and diesel prices.

Projections to characterize expected volatility do not exist, though it is unlikely that jet fuel 

volatility will noticeably decrease and more likely that the industry will continue to face the need 

to manage this risk. It is possible introducing alternative fuels in large amounts could reduce 

price volatility, and this potential is currently under investigation.

Jet fuel price volatility and the long-term trend of price increases are a business challenge for the 

entire aviation industry, affecting operations of both airports and airlines. Jet fuel price volatility 

has prompted airlines to pursue financial risk management measures, such as jet fuel hedging, as 

discussed in the next section. These challenges have also greatly affected medium and 

small airports.

U.S. air carriers respond to increases in jet fuel prices by changing their schedules in the shortterm or changing their fleet in the long-term (Spitz and Berardino 2011). Jet fuel accounts for the 

single-largest direct operating cost (International Air Transport Association 2010); Airlines for 

America estimated that every $1/barrel increase in the price of oil represents $425 million in 

additional expenses for the airline industry (PR Newswire 2013). Passing on higher fuel costs to 

customers is difficult for airlines. An extensive literature review commissioned by the 
20

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

International Air Transport Administration found that demand for air travel has been consistently

price-elastic8

—that is, an increase in ticket price will result in a decrease in the number of tickets 

sold (InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. 2007). This effect is largest for a single airline seeking to 

increase its ticket prices while others are not. Local and regional flights are more price-elastic 

than longer flights because substitute transportation exists. If airline fares increase across a broad 

range of markets (routes and carriers) by the same amount, for example through the imposition 

of a tax, air travel has been found to be inelastic (Smyth and Pearce 2008; Jung and Fujii 1976;

InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. 2007).

Carter et al. (2006a) found that the industry under-invested in growth opportunities during 

periods of particularly high and volatile prices. When fuel prices are high, airlines face 

compressed operating margins with which to cover both operating costs and fixed costs. During 

periods of unexpected high fuel price, some airlines sell assets, often at a discount, to 

raise revenue. 

Airports are affected by the fuel price impact on airlines. When jet fuel prices spike (as was the 

case in 20089

), airports see changes that affect operating budgets and capital improvement 

programs. The data show that price spikes could affect air service at smaller airports more 

drastically than larger airports. One possible reason for the inequity in impact could be that 

demand patterns change more drastically at smaller airports, as people choose to drive to larger 

airports with cheaper fares (Spitz and Berardino 2011). Another reason could be that carriers 

consolidate their route offerings due to increased jet fuel prices (Carey 2013).

 8 In the literature, route elasticities range from -1.2 to -1.5. A price elasticity greater than 1 in absolute value 

indicates price elasticity (InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. 2007). 9 The price spike in 2008 was a result of a combination of factors: stagnant oil supply, rapidly increasing demand 

from non-OECD economies (especially China), depreciation of the U.S. dollar, and financial speculation 

(Hamilton 2009). 
21

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Risk Mitigation and Airline Fuel Prices

Companies pursue varying strategies to mitigate the risks imposed by fuel-price volatility in 

order to reduce exposure to the uncertainty surrounding fuel costs. The CAAFI found that it is 

unlikely that biojet would be valued for hedging, at least initially, because of its small market 

size and lack of price history. The CAAFI publication also discusses structuring biofuels 

contracts with price floors and price ceilings for risk mitigation (Miller and Heimlich 2013). 

To mitigate jet fuel price risk, consumers can conduct business as usual, employ financial tools,

dynamically adjust capacity, or index shipping charges to fuel prices. In one particular instance,

Delta Air Lines purchased a refinery. Financial tools may be used to establish a hedging strategy 

that consists of a set of financial instruments. A hedge establishes a fixed or capped cost through 

a commodity swap or option.

10 For example, if an airline buys a fuel swap and jet fuel price 

decreases, the airline would have to pay an above-market rate for fuel. If the same airline buys a 

call option and jet fuel price increases, the airline would obtain a return on the option based on 

the price difference, which would aid in offsetting the actual cost of fuel. Financial instruments 

that target jet fuel specifically are not available, so prices of other petroleum product 

commodities are used. However, hedging can be fairly risky; it necessitates a large amount of 

capital to finance the initial transaction costs and is betting on the future price of jet fuel 

(Airlines for America 2014a). Nearly all airlines hedge for next-year fuel cost or have fuel cost 

pass-through agreements with major airline partners or charter arrangements. Typically, hedges 

contract two to three years forward. Jet fuel hedging may result in a 5% to 10% increase in firm 

value by allowing it to re-invest funds during periods of high jet fuel price. Extremely high fuel 

prices often require non-hedged airlines to liquidate assets at below-market prices; hedged firms 

then grow in value as they are in a position to purchase the discounted assets (D. A. Carter, 

Rogers, and Simkins 2006b).

 10 Swaps are used when a company would like to lock in a price for a specific commodity. That company can 

purchase a swap so that a different party will assume the liability of the variable market or index price. A call 

option represents the right to purchase a specific quantity of a commodity, at a specified price. A put option is the 

right to sell a specific quantity of a commodity at a specified price.
22

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 15 highlights the differences among airlines’ hedging strategies and differences between

2003 and 2012. More airlines hedged more of their fuel purchases in 2003 than in 2012.

Figure 16 shows fuel cost trends and net profits and losses for seven major U.S. airlines.

Figure 15. Airline fuel expense and hedging summary, fiscal year 2003 versus 2012 

Sources: D. Carter, Rogers, and Simkins 2004; Companies’ 10-k 2013

Company

Fiscal

Year

0K 100K 200K

Available

Seat Miles

(millions)

0.00 0.04

Fuel Expense

(nominal

$/available

seat mile)

0% 30%

Fuel as a %

of Operating

Expense

0 2 4

Max Maturity

of Hedged

Fuel (years)

0% 40% 80%

Average % of

Fuel Hedged

(fiscal year +

1)

0% 40%

Average % of

Fuel Hedged

(fiscal year +

2)

Airtran

Holdings

2003

2012

America

West

2003

2012

American 2003

2012

Continental 2003

2012

Delta 2003

2012

Frontier 2003

2012

Midwest Air 2003

2012

Northwest 2003

2012

Southwest 2003

2012

United 2003

2012

US Airways 2003

2012

Acquired by Southwest in 2011

Acquired by US Airways in 2005

Acquired by United in 2010

Acquired by Frontier in 2010

Acquired by Delta in 2008

Frontier was not included in the original table
23

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 16. Fuel and oil costs versus profits for U.S.-based airlines, 2002–2010

Missing data represent either bankruptcies or mergers.

Source: AirlineFinancials.com LLC 2013

U.S. airlines typically base their hedging strategies on prices of crude oil or the chemically 

similar Number 2 heating oil (Westbrooks 2005). Hedging strategies vary by carrier. Alaska 

Airlines and Southwest Airlines engage in aggressive financial hedges, but United Airlines 

hedges on a more limited basis (Figure 15). From 2003 to 2012, the nominal fuel expense per 

seat mile doubled because of the increase in the share of overall operating costs of the airlines

that was attributed to fuel costs (Figure 16).

Employing a different method for hedging against volatile prices, a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Delta Air Lines purchased the Trainer refinery in Pennsylvania from Phillips 66, becoming the 

first airline to invest in a refinery (See text box, next page). This move was largely motivated by 

forecasted East Coast jet fuel supply shortages. Currently, refined petroleum products move from 

the Gulf Cost to the Northeast via the Colonial Pipeline, which has limited capacity to accept 

increased shipments (Energy Information Administration 2011). By purchasing the refinery, 

Delta Air Lines hoped to transport less expensive petroleum by rail from the Midwest (which is 

oversupplied with petroleum from North Dakota’s Bakken formation), refine it at Trainer near 

Philadelphia, and distribute it to airports throughout the Northeast (CAPA Centre for Aviation 

2013).

11

 11 The increase in domestic petroleum production enabled by hydraulic fracturing and the resulting oversupply 

existing in the Midwest has increased the demand for East Coast refining capacity. This strategy marks a change for 

a region that had witnessed several refinery closures, or threatened closures, during 2012 (Ailworth 2013; 

Ailworth 2012).
24

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

A physical hedge such as this mitigates some risks while posing others, such as the low liquidity 

of owning real property and the relative inflexibility of the refining capacity available at that 

particular refinery, which may be optimized to particular types of crude oil.

Quote Describing Delta Air Lines’ Trainer Refinery Purchase

(Delta Air Lines, Inc. 2012, pp. 4-5):

Because global demand for jet fuel and related products is increasing at the same time that jet fuel 

refining capacity is decreasing in the U.S. (particularly in the Northeast), the refining margin 

reflected in the prices for jet fuel has increased. Our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Monroe Energy, 

LLC and MIPC, LLC (collectively, “Monroe”), acquired the Trainer refinery and related assets 

located near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in June 2012 as part of our strategy to mitigate the 

increasing cost of the refining margin1 we are paying.

Refinery Acquisition. Monroe invested $180 million to acquire the refinery from Phillips 66. 

Monroe received a $30 million grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

acquisition includes pipelines and terminal assets that allow the refinery to supply jet fuel to 

our airline operations throughout the Northeastern U.S., including our New York hubs at 

LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK"). Prior to the transaction, 

Phillips 66 had shut down operations at the refinery.

Refinery Operations. The facility is capable of refining 185,000 barrels of crude oil per day.1

In addition to jet fuel, the refinery's production consists of gasoline, diesel and refined 

products (“non-jet fuel products”). Production at the refinery restarted in September 2012. 

BP is the primary supplier of crude oil used by the refinery under a three year agreement. 

We are also exploring other sources of crude oil supply, such as bringing supply to the 

refinery by rail from the Bakken oil field in North Dakota.

Strategic Agreements. Under a multi-year agreement, we are exchanging a significant 

portion of the non-jet fuel products with Phillips 66 for jet fuel to be used in our airline 

operations. Substantially all of the remaining production of non-jet fuel products is being 

sold to BP under a long-term buy/sell agreement effectively exchanging those non-jet fuel 

products for jet fuel. Our agreement with Phillips 66 requires us to deliver specified 

quantities of non-jet fuel products and they are required to deliver jet fuel to us. If we or 

Phillips 66 do not have the specified quantity and type of product available, the delivering 

party is required to procure any such shortage to fulfill its obligation under the agreement. 

Substantially all of the refinery's expected production of non-jet fuel products is included in 

these agreements.
25

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Environmental Concerns and Aviation Biofuels

The effect of transportation fuel choices on the overall well-being of the nation is an important 

attribute of different transportation energy future scenarios, but markets only partially reflect the 

social welfare effects of these choices.12 A substantial literature gives estimates of a few of the 

externalities associated with fuel choice: criteria air pollutants and precursors, GHG emissions, 

and energy security. While these issues are pertinent to the aviation industry, they are beyond the 

scope of this report. Instead, this section briefly addresses airline industry goals to reduce 

emissions, which have spurred interest in biojet, and it summarizes the status of those fuels.

5.1 Commitments to Reduced Emissions

The aviation industry faces regulatory risks associated with GHG emissions, which may support 

a business case for a reduction in emissions. The European Union’s carbon tax on air transport is 

an example of a recent increase in regulatory costs associated with GHG emissions. By limiting 

emissions now, the industry could potentially avoid added regulatory- or climate-change-driven

costs in the future. In addition, the implementation of climate change strategies by the airline 

industry may be attractive to customers and/or investors. Finally, protecting the environment 

could be seen as being socially responsible (Heeres et al. 2011).

In 2008, the international aviation sector—including the major U.S. airlines as represented by 

Airlines for America—committed to reducing carbon emissions through technology (including 

biofuels), improving operational practices, and improving infrastructure in the near and long 

term (Air Transport Action Group 2010). These commitments are part of an overall aviation 

sector policy strategy perspective, as described by Airlines for America (Airlines for America 

2014b). Specific targets and pathways to achieve targets include:

1. Increasing fuel efficiency by an annual average of 1.5% per year on a revenue ton mile 

basis through 2020—this will largely come from replacing old aircraft with new, more 

efficient aircraft

2. Capping net carbon emissions at the 2020 level—emissions the industry is unable to 

reduce will be offset by “economic” measures (e.g., voluntary purchase of carbon offsets)

3. Committing to net carbon emissions that are one-half of 2005 levels by 2050—the 

industry seeks to achieve this reduction through a combination of advanced technology 

and large volumes13 of biofuels.

 12 In economics, social welfare is the sum of the economic well-being of all individuals. Markets are good at setting 

prices that optimize social welfare for some types of goods and services but not for other types. One category of 

market failure is called externalities—costs or benefits of economic activity that are external to markets and thus not 

possible to buy or sell. In the transportation fuels case, markets may be expected to face limits in their ability to 

value public goods, such as a healthy environment and a secure energy supply. 13 The Air Transport Action Group (2009) estimates that 50% of jet fuel used by commercial flights could be 

biomass-based by 2040. 
26

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 17 shows an emissions trajectory consistent with these goals. These targets would build 

on historical improvements in energy efficiency. For example, during the period 1958–2010, 

advances in airline efficiency, logistics, and load factor have improved the fuel burned per seatmile by 50%.

Figure 17. Aviation industry emissions targets and measures to achieve 

Source: Air Transport Action Group 2010

The CAAFI provides an example terms sheet that notes documentation of GHG emission 

reduction as a key sustainability criterion to include in alternative aviation fuels contracts (Miller 

and Heimlich 2013), and the CAAFI also provides guidance on sustainability criteria

(Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative 2013).

5.2 Relative Emissions of Aviation Biofuels

Biojet is a key component of a proposed strategy to reduce the GHG emissions that are 

associated with aviation. Airlines also seek potential reductions in emissions associated with 

local air quality impacts, such as particulate matter, through these fuels (Airlines for America 

2014c). Large-scale use of biofuels would require development of production capacity, 

infrastructure, and logistics to support their inclusion in the fuel supply chain. Two production 

processes are approved for biojet production, and biojet has been used in both commercial and 

military applications.

The aviation industry identifies biofuels as part of a strategy to reduce GHG emissions because 

of the estimated potential for advanced biofuels to reach lower life cycle GHG emissions than 

conventional jet fuel. The extent of the potential emission reduction depends on the details of the 

fuels to be compared; life cycle analyses of conventional and biojet fuel have been conducted, 

although this area of research is relatively new, methodologically diverse, and can produce a 

wide range of resulting values. Conventional and biojet have both been incorporated into the 
27

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Greenhouse gas, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model, as 

described in Elgowainy et al. (2012) and Han (2013). Biomass feedstocks considered in GREET 

include corn stover, other cellulosic biomass, such as switchgrass, and bio-oils (from soybeans, 

palm, rapeseed, jatropha, camelina, and algae). Three different biomass-to-biofuel conversion 

pathways currently are included: a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process for converting cellulosic 

biomass; a pyrolysis process for converting corn stover; and conversion of bio-oils using a 

HEFA process, also known as hydrotreated renewable jet fuel processes.

Stratton et al. (2010) compared life cycle GHG emissions from a baseline conventional jet fuel to 

GHG emissions from jet fuel produced from a wide range of biomass feedstocks that included 

switchgrass, corn stover, soy oil, palm oil, rapeseed oil, jatropha oil, algae oil, and salicornia.

These include feedstocks suitable for domestic cultivation in the United States, as well as palm 

and salicornia, which would primarily be cultivated internationally in warmer climates. Stratton 

et al. (2010) selected baseline jet fuel transportation and recovery emissions of 87.5 grams of 

carbon dioxide-equivalent per megajoule (gCO2e/MJ), calculated from the weighted average for 

crude oil entering U.S. refineries in 2005. The baseline emissions associated with processing 

were based on projected 2015 crude oil characteristics. The study explored a low and a high case 

for emissions of conventional jet fuel based on varying these choices, with the low at 92% of the 

baseline and the high at 125% of the baseline (R. Stratton, Wong, and Hileman 2010).

In addition to considering a range of biomass feedstocks, Stratton et al. (2010) examined a range 

of assumptions about soil carbon and direct land use change; indirect land use change was not 

considered. The greatest reductions in life cycle GHG emissions were found for biojet produced 

from switchgrass using the FT process and from salicornia using both FT and HEFA. For the 

switchgrass pathway, life cycle biojet emissions were estimated at 20% of baseline conventional 

jet fuel without considering effects on soil carbon and -2% of baseline with effects on soil 

carbon. For the salicornia pathway, life cycle biojet emissions were estimated at 55% of baseline 

conventional jet without considering carbon sequestration and 7% with carbon sequestration. The 

highest estimated life cycle increase in GHG emissions was found when peatland rainforest was 

assumed to be converted to palm oil plantations. When that direct land use change assumption 

was applied to the pathway involving palm oil feedstock conversion to HEFA, estimated life 

cycle GHG emissions were estimated at 7.98% of baseline conventional jet. Table 3 summarizes 

estimated life cycle GHG emissions for some of the pathways in Stratton et al. (2010) and shows 

the low and high ranges that were reported from alternate assumptions.

Table 3 also shows an estimate from Shonnard et al. (2010), who used the baseline conventional 

jet GHG emissions of 88 gCO2e/MJ from Skone and Gerdes (2008) (also based on 2005 life 

cycle data). They compared this baseline to HEFA production from a camelina feedstock, and 

they estimated a 75% reduction in life cycle GHG emissions, not including indirect land use 

change.14 Table 3 shows the sensitivity of this estimate to alternate methods for 

allocating emissions. 

 14 For consistency within Table 3, all values are relative to the 87.5 gCO2e/MJ baseline.
28

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 3. Relative Life Cycle GHG Emissions from Conventional Jet and Biojet Fuels, Normalized to 

Conventional Jet Emissions Ratea

Fuel, Feedstock, and Assumptions Baselineb Low High Notesc

Conventional Jet (Crude Oil) 1.00 0.92 1.25 1.00 = 

87.5 gCO2e/MJ 

Biojet

Switchgrass, without soil carbon 0.20 0.14 0.30 FT

Switchgrass, with soil carbon -0.02 FT

Corn Stover, without soil carbon 0.10 FT

Corn Stover, with soil carbon 0.16 FT

Forest Residue 0.14 FT

Soy Oil, no LUC 0.42 0.31 0.68 HEFA

Soy Oil, grassland conversion 1.12 0.93 1.62 HEFA

Soy Oil, tropical rainforest conversion 5.70 6.45 8.85 HEFA

Palm Oil, no LUC 0.26 0.34 0.44 HEFA

Palm Oil, logged forest conversion 0.45 0.37 0.54 HEFA

Palm Oil, tropical rainforest conversion 1.75 1.90 2.21 HEFA

Palm Oil, peatland rainforest conversion 7.98 7.60 9.16 HEFA

Salicornia 0.35 0.55 0.76 HEFA + F-T

Salicornia, with carbon sequestration -0.22 0.07 0.37 HEFA + F-T

Camelina, energy allocation 0.26 

HEFA (Shonnard, 

Williams, and Kalnes 

2010)

Camelina, mass allocation 0.23

HEFA (Shonnard, 

Williams, and Kalnes 

2010)

Camelina, displacement allocation -0.19

HEFA (Shonnard, 

Williams, and Kalnes 

2010)

LUC = direct land use change; HEFA = hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids, also called hydrotreated 

renewable jet

a 1.00 = 87.5 gCO2e/MJ

b GHG emissions relative to baseline; Shonnard et al. (2010) did not include land use change. Stratton et 

al. (2010) applied displacement allocation wherever possible, followed by energy allocation where 

possible, and mass allocation for remaining processes.

c Values are from Stratton et al. (2010) unless otherwise noted.
29

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

For conventional jet fuel, the source of the crude oil influences life cycle GHG emissions 

primarily due to variation in recovery, transportation, and quality characteristics that influence 

processing requirements. For biojet, the greatest impact on life cycle emissions (not considering 

land use change or operations) is generally from biomass feedstock production, which is also 

called feedstock recovery. The second largest impact is generally from biomass-to-biofuel

conversion processing (R. Stratton, Wong, and Hileman 2010; Shonnard, Williams, and Kalnes 

2010). Avoiding unfavorable land use changes is essential to reducing GHG emissions relative to 

conventional jet fuel. Stratton et al. (2011) review sources of variability in life cycle GHG 

emission estimates. This section emphasizes life cycle GHG emissions reduction potential; for 

consideration of additional metrics of sustainability, such as air pollution effects, soil and water 

effects, solid or liquid wastes, biodiversity, and land-use changes, see Williams et al. (2009).

5.3 Certification and Demonstration of Biojet

Aviation fuels must be certified before they can be used in aircraft. They need to comply with 

internationally recognized standards, such as ASTM International. The ASTM approval process 

is a multi-year, multi-million dollar process (Rumizen 2013). Two different conversion 

technologies have already been certified with ASTM standards. In 2009, ASTM International 

approved standards for alternative fuels use in aviation through the FT process, which can 

convert renewable feedstock or fossil fuel sources to jet fuel (Enright 2011). In 2011, the 

production of jet fuel from HEFA was added to the standard under D7566-11. The standard 

states that these fuels, which may be biomass-based, can be used in commercial aviation in up to 

a 50/50 blend with petroleum-based jet fuel, which is certified through ASTM Standard D1655 

(approved in 1959). Multiple task forces are working on certification of other conversion 

processes through Standard D7566 (SkyNRG 2013). Two task forces operating in ASTM

address alcohol-to-jet processes: synthetic paraffinic kerosene and synthetic aromatic kerosene. 

Certification is expected in 2014 for synthetic paraffinic kerosene and in 2015 for synthetic 

aromatic kerosene. A third task force is working to certify the hydrotreated-depolymerizedcellulosic-jet pathway, using a pyrolysis process, and anticipates approval in 2015. A fourth is 

working on the direct-sugars-to-hydrocarbons process to produce an additive that could be added 

to jet fuel (at 5%–10% by volume). A fifth addresses the FT process that includes aromatics 

(SkyNRG 2013). In addition, Boeing announced that it is considering the use of renewable diesel 

as a blend stock for jet fuel. It has filed with ASTM to either alter the D7566 standard or create 

an annex for the HEFA standard, and it hopes to have the approval by the end of 2014 (Sapp 

2014).

Expanding on the approved feedstock list, various biomass resources could be used to produce 

jet fuel substitutes. These include lignocellulosic material such as wood waste, crop residues, and 

dedicated energy crops, as well as lipid feedstock, such as vegetable and waste oils, grease, 

animal fat, and algae. Milbrandt et al. (2013) reviewed related literature and evaluated the 

technical and economic feasibility of biomass-based diesel and jet fuel production and use in the 

United States. They found that technologies exist to convert biomass to jet fuel; however, the 

production capacity is currently small, and production costs are not well known, especially for 

less-developed processes. Although Milbrandt et al. (2013) found that renewable diesel demand 

is expected to increase, due in part to its low sulfur content, renewable jet fuel is not expected to 

expand unless its production proves cost-competitive with fossil fuels.
30

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Once it is produced, biojet would need to be transported, stored, and dispensed for use at the 

airport. Aviation fuels produced from non-petroleum sources could use much of the same 

infrastructure that is already in place for conventional aviation fuels, if the fuels are compatible 

and can be introduced effectively into the supply chain. Specific chemical compatibility, 

regulatory, and logistical issues may pose challenges for biofuels entering particular parts of the 

system, such as the need for large batches in pipelines and the regulatory constraints on mixing 

biojet with jet fuel upstream of the blending location. Figure 18 shows blending with 

conventional jet fuel after production, although biofuel or bio-based blendstock could also be 

produced in existing petroleum refineries.

Figure 18. Biojet supply chain

Source: Airport Cooperative Research Program 2012

Biofuel has been used in both commercial and military aviation on a small scale. Hammel (2013)

provides a list of biofuel procurement and test flights in the commercial aviation industry. As of 

March 2013, more than 20 routes of commercial flights had used biofuels as a portion of their 

fuel source, and the number of flights that have used biofuels continues to increase (“Flights that 

have been fuelled by biofuels,” 2013). In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense collaborates 

with the commercial aviation industry on alternative aviation fuels (Airlines for America 2010). 

It has made numerous purchases of biomass-based aviation and diesel fuel for various reasons,

including national security, possibly motivated by regulations of carbon emissions by aircraft

and possibly to hedge against future price increases of petroleum-based fuels (Rogers 2012). The 

U.S. Navy has made development of biofuels a key part of its research and development with a 

goal to sail an alternative energy "Great Green Fleet" by 2016 and increase alternative fuels

(including biofuels) to 50% of Navy afloat operations by 2020, including naval aviation. The 

purchases made by the Department of Defense through the beginning of 2012 are shown in 

Table 4. For reference, total military purchases of aviation fuel are represented in Figure 8.

The Department of Defense can provide contracts with terms of up to 5 years for alternative fuels

(currently defined as fuels derived from natural gas, coal, or biomass). However, contracts to 

date have generally only been for 1-year terms. Industry experts have informed the Department 

of Defense that 5-year contracts are “not sufficient to stimulate the private capital market or 

potential alternative fuels suppliers to construct or expand production facilities...purchase 
31

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

contracts of at least 10 years in duration could potentially stimulate additional capital investment 

in alternative fuels production beyond the small volumes currently planned in response to 

commercial demand” (Operational Energy Plans and Programs 2012). The length of the contract 

term is only one of many factors that prospective investors would assess in their evaluation of 

financial risk and return.

Biojet is considered an important part of the aviation industry’s GHG emission reductions 

strategy. Using it to reach a GHG emissions goal of 2050 emissions at one-half of the 2005 level 

would involve significant development of standards and regulatory approvals, feedstocks, 

conversion facilities, transportation infrastructure, and logistics, as summarized above. Initial use 

of biojet has proceeded in commercial and military applications. 
32

Thi t i il bl t t f th N ti l R bl E L b t (NREL) t l / bli ti

Table 4. Biojet and Alternative Jet Fuel Contracts Executed by the U.S. Department of Defense

Date Vendor Fuel Gallons $ Total Contract Term Fuel Type

Alternative Fuels (Biomass-based)

Aug 31 2009 Sustainable oils Camelina JP-5 40,000 2,644,000 Seven months Aviation

Aug 31, 2009 Solazyme Algae F-76 20,055 8,574,022 Two-time delivery for testing Distillate

Sept 1, 2009 Solazyme Algae JP-5 1,500 223,500 One-time delivery on May 28, 2010 for testing Aviation

Sept 15 2009 UOP (Cargill) Tallow JP-8 100,000 6,400,000

Sept 15, 2009 Sustainable oils Camelina JP-8 100,526 6,715,137 Indefinite quantity/delivery; POP* ends Oct 30 

2010 Aviation

June 29, 2010 Sustainable oils Camelina JP-5 150,000 5,167,500 2010–2012, delivered Q1 2012 Aviation

July 26, 2010 Sustainable oils Camelina JP-8 34,950 1,349,070 One-time delivery on May 28, 2010 for testing Aviation

Aug 4, 2010 Sustainable oils Camelina JP-8 19,672 759,339 Ends Jan 30, 2011 Aviation

Aug 31, 2010 Sustainable oils Camelina JP-8 100,000 3,490,000 Indefinite quantity /delivery; POP ends Oct 30, 

2010 Aviation

Aug 31, 2010 UOP (Cargill) Tallow JP-8 100,000 3,240,000 Indefinite quantity /delivery; POP ends Oct 30, 

2011 Aviation

Sept 10, 2010 Solazyme Algae F-76 75,000 5,640,000 Indefinite quantity/delivery; one potential delivery Distillate

Aug 26, 2011 Solazyme Algae F-76 75,000 4,600,000 Indefinite quantity/delivery; one potential delivery Distillate

Sept 23, 2011 Gevo Alcohol to JP-8 11,000 649,000 Delivery period: Sep1, 2011 through Jan 30, 2013 Aviation

Sept. 30 2011 UOP Bio JP-8 4,500 148,500 Aviation

Nov 30, 2011 Dynamic fuels 

(Tyson+Syntroleum), 

Solazyme

Tallow & Algae JP-5

Tallow and Algae F76

350,000 12,037,500 Delivery period : Jan 1, 2012 through May 1, 2012 Aviation

Feb 2, 2012 Albemarle Cobalt n-Butanol to

Jet Fuel 55 245,000 Aviation
33

Thi t i il bl t t f th N ti l R bl E L b t (NREL) t l / bli ti

Date Vendor Fuel Gallons $ Total Contract Term Fuel Type

Alternative Fuels (Not Biomass-based)

June 6, 2007 Equilon Natural gas to 

aviation kerosene 315,000 1,075,694 Aviation

June 26, 2008 SASOL Coal to aviation 

kerosene 60,000 225,000 Aviation

July 3, 2008 SASOL Coal to aviation 

kerosene 335,000 1,306,500 Aviation

Sept 30, 2009 PM Group Natural gas to diesel 20,000 140,000 Distillate

*POP = period of performance

Source: (Kiefer 2013; Staff Writer 2009; Defense Logistics Agency 2010; Defense Logistics Agency 2011b; Defense Logistics Agency 2011a)
34

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.4 Analytic Gaps

Others have comprehensively assessed overall research, development, and deployment needs for 

biojet and alternative aviation fuels (Midwest Aviation Sustainable Biofuels Initiative 2014; 

Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative 2014; Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels 

Initiative 2013; Mineiro et al. 2014). Analytic gaps in the literature on the potential role of 

biomass- or non-petroleum-based jet fuels as an alternative to conventional kerosene-based jet 

fuel are highlighted here, with a focus on market potential and comprehensive benefits analysis. 

These areas have been identified as topics for potential future research. This list, which includes 

interrelated issues, is not comprehensive of the research, development, and deployment needs 

discussed elsewhere, nor does it suggest priorities or recommend a sequence in which to address 

the gaps.

5.4.1 Market Potential

• The business case for biojet in general and also for particular pathways is not well 

established and may rely upon non-financial factors, such as environmental regulation. 

Additional research could be done to assess biojet market potential, by pathway, with 

consideration of users’ and investors’ perspectives, regulatory requirements, and 

policy goals. 

• Related to the above assessment of market potential, there is a need for comparative analysis 

of jet fuel costs versus alternative jet fuel costs. This analysis could include current and 

projected costs, airline costs of managing volatility through hedging and other means, and

airline management of regulatory risks. Harmonization of past analyses that are divergent 

could aid understanding. Airline perspectives on these issues would be informative.

• Additional analysis could support improved understanding of interactions between biojet

markets and other markets, including biofuels for ground transportation in both gasoline and 

ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel markets. This analysis could help clarify the opportunity for 

biofuels in the aviation fuel market. For example, HEFA-derived fuel likely can be sold more 

profitably into ultra-low-sulfur diesel markets than aviation markets (Midwest Aviation 

Sustainable Biofuels Initiative 2013; Quantas Airways Ltd. et al. 2013). 

• Little understanding exists regarding the extent to which alternative jet fuels have the 

potential to mitigate jet fuel price volatility. In particular, given a relatively nascent market, 

there is little understanding of the price volatility of alternative jet fuels and the degree to 

which this will, or will not, correlate with jet fuel price volatility. A future area of research 

could evaluate the historical degree of volatility, as well as sources of volatility for other 

biofuels, and could apply relevant lessons to alternative jet fuels.

5.4.2 Comprehensive Benefits Analysis

• Identify and evaluate the environmental and social benefits of alternative jet fuel relative to 

conventional jet fuel. 

• Evaluation of the full supply chain (from feedstock to finished fuel) for multiple prospective 

pathways is incomplete and could benefit from further analysis. Such evaluation could fill in 

a broader set of dimensions beyond fuel testing/certification, technoeconomic, logistics, and 

market considerations.
35

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

In addition, several datasets that are not collected or not readily available to the public would aid 

the analysis:

• Tracking chemical and physical characteristics of conventional jet fuel in sufficient spatial 

and temporal detail to ensure that blending with biojet will meet specifications would 

facilitate planning for blending logistics. 

• While actual jet fuel contracts are likely unavailable due to their proprietary nature, it would 

be helpful to gain a clear understanding of their terms, particularly the signing parties and the 

length of contracts.

15

• Data on movement of jet fuel from the refinery to airports would allow a better 

understanding of the status quo in order to identify least-cost logistics for biojet.

 15 Miller and Heimlich (2013) provide an overview of the basic components included in a jet fuel contract.
36

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 Conclusions

This report provides an overview of the aviation industry and its fuel market. Biofuel 

stakeholders are the intended audience. The report characterizes the state of the U.S. aviation 

fuel industry in terms of the major suppliers and buyers, the fuel transportation infrastructure, 

production and consumption, and geospatial distribution.

The communities of fuel suppliers and fuel consumers are important stakeholders for biofuel 

market entry. If biofuels enter the aviation fuel market, they would need to use portions of the

aviation fuel transportation infrastructure. Significant market entry of biojet would impact 

geospatial flows of aviation fuels.

Fuel efficiency in aviation has improved significantly, especially for the U.S. industry, due to 

both airplane technology advancements and logistical enhancements. Continued improvement in 

fuel efficiency will be critical to meeting the long-term goals of the aviation industry to curtail 

GHG emissions. The industry sees biojet as an important complement to continued efficiency 

improvement in its strategy to meet these long-term goals.

Aviation fuel price accounts for such a large share of aviation costs that managing price

increases and price volatility is an ongoing challenge. Whether biofuels could help mitigate 

either of these concerns is a question for further exploration.

An opportunity might exist for biofuels penetration into the aviation fuel market on an 

environmental basis and possibly on an economic basis. Initial steps toward greater use of biojet

have been taken, in the form of ASTM standards for two fuel production pathways and smallscale use of biofuels in both commercial and military applications. Further analysis could explore 

the potential of biofuels in aviation fuel markets to help meet aviation industry goals.
37

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References

Ailworth, E. (2012). “In Region, an Added Threat on Gas Prices.” The Boston Globe. Accessed 

July 4, 2013: 

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/03/05/in_region_an_added_threat_on_gas_prices/.

Ailworth, E. (2013). “U.S. Shale Oil Reviving East Coast Refineries.” The Boston Globe. 

Accessed July 4, 2013: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/18/shale-oilreviving-east-coast-refineries/kBQmoNp4RNdXU4KREkv6sM/story.html. 

Air Transport Action Group. (2009). Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels. Geneva, 

Switzerland. http://aviationbenefits.org/environmental-efficiency

Air Transport Action Group. (November 2010). Flightpath Set for Cancun, 4th edition. 

http://www.atag.org/component/downloads/downloads/71.html.

AirlineFinancials.com LLC. (2013). “Airline Data - Largest Airlines 2002-2010.” Airline Data 

and Analysis. Accessed July 31, 2013: 

http://www.airlinefinancials.com/airline_data_comparisons.html. 

Airlines for America. (Unpublished). "Jet A Consumption by U.S. Airport in 2012."

Airlines for America. (2010). “ATA/DESC Announce Strategic Alliance for Alternative 

Aviation Fuels.” Accessed March 25, 2014: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/ATA-DESCAnnounce-Strategic-Alliance-for-Alternative-Aviation-Fuels.aspx. 

Airlines for America. (2014a). “Fuel 101 from Well to Wing.” Accessed March 25, 2014: 

http://www.airlines.org/Pages/Fuel-101-From-Well-to-Wing.aspx. 

Airlines for America. (2014b). “A4A Climate Change Commitment - A Global, Sectoral 

Approach.” Accessed March 25, 2014: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/A4A-Climate-ChangeCommitment---A-Global,-Sectoral-Approach.aspx. 

Airlines for America. (2014c). “Environmentally Friendly Alternative Fuels.” Accessed March 4, 

2014: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/Environmentally-Friendly-Alternative-Fuels.aspx. 

Airlines for America. (2014d). March 23, 2014, personal communication via email from John 

Heimlich.

Airport Cooperative Research Program. (2012). Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel 

into the Airport Setting.

Association of American Railroads. (2013). Moving Crude Oil by Rail. Washington, DC: 

Association of American 

Railroads. https://www.aar.org/safety/Documents/Assets/Transportation_of_Crude_Oil_by_Rail.

pdf.

Bacon, R.; Kojima, M. (2008). Coping with Oil Price Volatility. 
38

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Energy Security Special Report 005/08. Washington, DC: Energy Sector Management 

Assistance Program.

Bioenergy Technologies Office; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2013). Multi-Year 

Program Plan May 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/mypp_may_2013.pdf.

CAPA Centre for Aviation. (2013). “Delta Air Lines’ Oil Refinery Investment Losses Concern 

Skeptical Investors and Observers.” Aviation Analysis. Accessed March 4, 2014: 

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/delta-air-lines-oil-refinery-investment-losses-concernsceptical-investors-and-observers-119749. 

Carey, B. (2013). “Airlines’ Capacity Discipline Exacts Toll on Airports.” Aviation International 

News. Accessed June 11, 2013: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-air-transportperspective/2013-05-20/airlines-capacity-discipline-exacts-toll-airports. 

Carter, D.A.; Rogers, D.A.; Simkins, B.J. (2006a). “Hedging and Value in the U.S. Airline 

Industry.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance (18:4); pp. 21–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-

6622.2006.00107.x.

Carter, D.A.; Rogers, D.A.; Simkins, B.J. (2006b). “Does Hedging Affect Firm Value? Evidence 

From the U.S. Airline Industry.” Financial Management (35:1); pp. 53–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-

053X.2006.tb00131.x.

Carter, D.; Rogers, D.; Simkins, B. (2004). “Does Fuel Hedging Make Economic Sense? The Case 

of the U.S. Airline Industry.” The Case of the U.S. Airline Industry (September 16, 2002). AFA.

Chevron Global Aviation. (2006). Aviation Fuels Technical Review. Houston, TX: Chevron 

Products Company. https://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/document/aviation_tech_review.pdf.

Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. (2013). Alternative Jet Fuel Environmental 

Sustainability Overview. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 

http://www.caafi.org/information/pdf/Sustainability_Guidance__Posted_2013_07.pdf.

Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. (2014). “CAAFI - Home.” Accessed April 10, 

2014: http://www.caafi.org/.

Davis, A. (2 March 2005). Morgan Stanley Trades Energy Old-Fashioned Way: In Barrels. 

Accessed February 7, 2014: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB110971828745967570. 

Defense Logistics Agency. (2010). “Emergent R&D - BAA040008 (Archived) - Federal 

Business Opportunities.” Federal Business Opportunities. Accessed March 5, 2014: 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=813e4765cc6ee307775f4

9fb896ba386. 
39

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Defense Logistics Agency. (2011a). “Alcohol-To-Jet (ATJ) Fuel - Federal Business 

Opportunities: Opportunities.” Federal Business Opportunities. Accessed March 5, 2014: 

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=6aeac6d16006292effb3947fdc

d86121&_cview=0. 

Defense Logistics Agency. (2011b). “Hydrotreated Renewable JP5 (HRJ5) and Hydrotreated 

Renewable F76 (HRD76) - SP0600-11-R-0705 - Federal Business Opportunities.” Federal 

Business Opportunities. Accessed March 5, 2014: 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=6949c9a5232b41874202

d33612ccf3a9&_cview=0. 

Defense Logistics Agency. (2013). Fact Book Fiscal Year 2012. Washington, DC: Department 

of Defense. 

http://www.energy.dla.mil/library/Documents/Fact%20Book%20Fiscal%20Year%202012.pdf.

Eastern Aviation Fuels, Inc. (2010). “Aviation Fuel for FBOs in the United States.” Accessed 

March 4, 2014: http://www.easternaviationfuels.com/. 

Elgowainy, A.; Han, J.; Wang, M.; Carter, N.; Stratton, R.; Hileman, J.; Malwitz, A.; 

Balasubramanian, S. (Energy Systems). (2012). Life-Cycle Analysis of Alternative Aviation Fuels 

in Greet. ANL/ESD/12-8. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Accessed December 12, 2013: 

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1046913. 

Energy Information Administration. (2011). Reductions in Northeast Refining Activity: Potential 

Implications for Petroleum Product Markets. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/petroleum/nerefining/prelim/pdf/nerefining_activity.pdf.

Energy Information Administration. (2012a). Refinery Capacity Report 2012. U.S. Department 

of Energy. Accessed June 3, 2013: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/. 

Energy Information Administration. (2012b). Annual Energy Review 2011. DOE/EIA0384(2011). U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed July 3, 2013: 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/. 

Energy Information Administration. (2013a). Annual Energy Outlook 2013 With Projections to 

2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2013). U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed July 3, 2013: 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. 

Energy Information Administration. (2013b). “Movements by Tanker, Pipeline, and Barge 

Between PAD Districts.” Petroleum & Other Liquids. Accessed December 12, 2013: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_ptb_a_epjk_tnr_mbbl_m.htm. 

Energy Information Administration. (2013c). “Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries.” 

Petroleum & Other Liquids. Accessed June 11, 2013: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm. 
40

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Energy Information Administration. (2013d). “U.S. Product Supplied for Crude Oil and 

Petroleum Products.” Petroleum & Other Liquids. Accessed December 11, 2013: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm. 

Energy Information Administration. (2013e). “Refinery & Blender Net Production of KeroseneType Jet Fuel.” Petroleum & Other Liquids. Accessed December 18, 2013: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp_a_EPJK_ypr_mbbl_a.htm. 

Energy Information Administration. (2014a). “Table Definitions, Sources, and Explanatory 

Notes.” Petroleum & Other Liquids. Accessed March 3, 2014: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/tbldefs/pet_sum_crdsnd_tbldef2.asp. 

Energy Information Administration. (2014b). Monthly Energy Review. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Accessed February 7, 2014: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf. 

Energy Information Administration. (2014c). “Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum 

Products.” Petroleum & Other Liquids. Accessed March 5, 2014: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm. 

Enright, C. (2011). “Aviation Fuel Standard Takes Flight.” ASTM International - Standards 

Worldwide. Accessed July 17, 2013: http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/SO_2011/enright_so11.html. 

Federal Aviation Administration. (2013). FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2013-2033. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed July 3, 2013: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_fore

casts/2013-2033/. 

“Flights That Have Been Fuelled by Biofuels.” (2013). AirportWatch. 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?page_id=5450.

Gibbs, B. (2012). Hearing on “How Reliability of the Inland Waterway System Impacts 

Economic Competitiveness.” Washington, DC: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

U.S. House of Representatives. 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/StatewidePlanning/Documents/Maritime/US

_house_reliability_inland_waterway_system.pdf.

Hamilton, J. (2009). Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08. Washington, DC: 

The Brookings Institution. Accessed July 17, 2013: 

http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2009/causes-consequences-oil-shockhamilton. 

Hammel, D. (2013). Aviation Biofuel Sustainability Survey. 13-03-A. New York, NY: National 

Resources Defense Council. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/aviation-biofuel-sustainabilitysurvey/files/aviation-biofuel-sustainability-survey-IB.pdf.

Han, J.; Elgowainy, A.; Cai, H.; Wang, M.Q. (2013). “Life-Cycle Analysis of Bio-Based 

Aviation Fuels.” Bioresource Technology (150); pp. 447–456. doi: 

10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.153.
41

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Heeres, J.L.; Kruijd, J.; Montgomery, E.; Simmons, J. (2011). Building Trust in the Air: Is 

Airline Corporate Sustainability Reporting Taking Off? Netherlands: PwC. Accessed March 5, 

2014: http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/sustainability/assets/pwc-airlines-cr.pdf. 

Homeland Security Infrastructure Program. (2012). Homeland Security Infrastructure Project. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

International Air Transport Association. (2010). Airline Fuel and Labour Cost Share. Montreal, 

Quebec: International Air Transport Association. Accessed April 12, 2013: 

http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/price-analysis.aspx. 

International Air Transport Association. (2013). IATA 2013 Report on Alternative Fuels. 8th 

Edition. Montreal, Quebec: International Air Transport Association. 

http://www.iata.org/publications/Documents/2013-report-alternative-fuels.pdf.

InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. (2007). Estimating Air Travel Demand Elasticities. Montreal, 

Quebec: International Air Transport Association. 

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/Intervistas_Elasticity_Study_2007.pdf.

Janić, M. (2011). Greening Airports Advanced Technology and Operations. London; New York: 

Springer.

Jung, J.M.; Fujii, E.T. (1976). “The Price Elasticity of Demand for Air Travel: Some New 

Evidence.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (10:3); pp. 257–262.

Kiefer, I. (2013). Twenty-First Century Snake Oil. Waterloo Institute for Complexity & 

Innovation.

Lee, T.K.; Zyren, J. (2007). “Volatility Relationship Between Crude Oil and Petroleum 

Products.” Atlantic Economic Journal (35:1); pp. 97–112. doi: 10.1007/s11293-006-9051-9.

Meltzer, J. (2013). “The International Civil Aviation Organization’s Regulation of CO2 

Emissions: Amending the EU Aviation Directive to Avoid a Trade War.” Opinion. 

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/10/25-regulating-cardon-dioxide-emissionsmeltzer#ftnte1.

Midwest Aviation Sustainable Biofuels Initiative. (2013). Fueling a Sustainable Future for 

Aviation. http://masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf.

Midwest Aviation Sustainable Biofuels Initiative. (2014). “MASBI.” Accessed April 10, 2014: 

http://masbi.org/. 

Milbrandt, A.; Kinchin, C.; McCormick, R. (2013). The Feasibility of Producing and Using 

Biomass-Based Diesel and Jet Fuel in the United States. NREL/TP-6A20-58015. Golden, CO: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/58015.pdf.
42

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Miller, B.; Heimlich, J. (2013). Guidance for Selling Alternative Fuels to Airlines. Washington, 

DC: Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative and Airlines for America. 

http://www.caafi.org/files/CAAFI_Business_Team_Guidance_Paper_060413.pdf.

Mineiro, M.C.; Pratt, L.M.; Sylak-Glassman, E.J.; Lal, B. (2014). Alternative Jet Fuels 

Workshop Report. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Operational Energy Plans and Programs. (2012). Long Term Contracting Authorities for 

Alternative Fuels. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. 

http://energy.defense.gov/Reports/tabid/3018/Article/3499/long-term-contracting-authorities-foralternative-fuels.aspx.

“PlaneStats by Oliver Wyman.” (2014). Accessed March 25, 2014: http://www.planestats.com/. 

PR Newswire. (2013). “Record Fuel Prices Demand Change in Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

Policy.” Accessed July 4, 2013: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/record-fuel-pricesdemand-change-in-strategic-petroleum-reserve-policy-74128397.html. 

Quantas Airways Ltd.; Shell Company of Australia Ltd.; Sinclair Knight Merz; AltAir Fuels; 

ARC Centre of Excellence for Plant Cell Walls; SkyNRG; Commonwealth Scientific and 

Industrial Research Organisation; Solena Fuels. (2013). Feasibility Study of Australian 

Feedstock and Production Capacity to Produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Canberra City, 

Australia: Australian Renewable Energy Agency. 

http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/environment/aviation-biofuel-report.pdf.

Regnier, E. (2007). “Oil and Energy Price Volatility.” Energy Economics (29:3); pp. 405–427. 

doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2005.11.003.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (2013). “Airline Fuel Cost and 

Consumption (U.S. Carriers-Scheduled); January 2000-February 2013.” Transtats. Accessed 

April 12, 2013: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (2014a). National Transportation Statistics 

2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed February 7, 2014: 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statist

ics/index.html. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (2014b). “Air Carrier Financial: Schedule 

P-12(a).” Transtats. Accessed March 7, 2014: 

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=294&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Ca

rrier%20Financial. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (2014c). “Air Carrier Financial: T-100 

Market (All Carriers).” Transtats. Accessed March 7, 2014: 

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=292. 
43

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Rogers, W. (7 June 2012). The Operational and Strategic Rationale Behind the U.S. Military’s 

Energy Efforts. Accessed August 1, 2013: http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/06/07/theoperational-and-strategic-rationale-behind-the-u-s-militarys-energy-efforts/. 

Rumizen, M. (2013). “Certification/Qualification.” Presented at the Advanced Biofuels 

Leadership Conference, April 17, Washington, DC. 

http://www.caafi.org/files/presentations/Cert-Qual_Rumizen_ABLC_Apr17_2013.pdf.

Sapp, M. (2014). “Boeing Hoping for ASTM Approval for Green Diesel as Jet Fuel by Year’s 

End.” Biofuels Digest. Accessed February 7, 2014: 

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/01/14/boeing-hoping-for-astm-approval-for-greendiesel-as-jet-fuel-by-years-end/. 

Sera, A. (December 2009). Jet Fuel Pipelines And Storage Require Special Operation, 

Maintenance Considerations. Accessed March 25, 2014: 

http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/jet-fuel-pipelines-and-storage-require-special-operationmaintenance-considerations?page=show. 

Shonnard, D.R.; Williams, L.; Kalnes, T.N. (2010). “Camelina-Derived Jet Fuel and Diesel: 

Sustainable Advanced Biofuels.” Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (29:3); pp. 

382–392. doi: 10.1002/ep.10461.

Skone, T.J.; Gerdes, K. (2008). Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels. DOE/NETL-2009/1346. Pittsburgh, PA: 

National Energy Technology Laboratory.

http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/DOE-NETL2009-1346-LCAPetr-BasedFuels-Nov08.pdf.

SkyNRG. (2013). “Technology Section.” Accessed February 5, 2014: 

http://skynrg.com/technology-section/. 

Smyth, M.; Pearce, B. (2008). Air Travel Demand. 09. Montreal, Quebec: International Air

Transport Association. Accessed April 12, 2013: 

http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/price-analysis.aspx. 

Spitz, W.; Berardino, F. (2011). Impact of Jet Fuel Price Uncertainty on Airport Planning and 

Development. Washington, DC: Airport Cooperative Research Program.

Staff Writer. (2009). “Sustainable Oils LLC Defense Contract to the Defense Logistics Agency 

Given on 9/15/2009.” Because Every Contract Tells a Story. Accessed March 5, 2014: 

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/contract_detail.asp?contract_id=9866. 

Stratton, R.W.; Wong, H.M.; Hileman, J.I. (2011). “Quantifying Variability in Life Cycle 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories of Alternative Middle Distillate Transportation Fuels.” 

Environmental Science & Technology (45:10); pp. 4637–4644. doi: 10.1021/es102597f.
44

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Stratton, R.; Wong, H.M.; Hileman, J. (2010). Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Alternative Jet Fuels. PARTNER-COE-2010-001. Project 28 Cambridge, MA: Partnership for 

Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction. 

http://www.obsa.org/Lists/Documentacion/Attachments/352/Life_cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissi

ons_alternative_jet_fuels_V.1.2_EN.pdf.

Sturtz, R.; Smith, G. (2010). “Fuel Consortia: A 30-Year Success Story.” Burns & McDonnell. 

Accessed July 4, 2013: http://www.burnsmcd.com/Resources/Article/Fuel-Consortia-A-30-YearSuccess-Story.

“Tesoro to Ship Jet Fuel From Asia to US West Coast.” (2012). Reuters. Accessed July 4, 2013: 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/korea-jet-export-idUSL4E8JO27420120824. 

Toohey, M. (2013). “The Importance of the Nation’s Inland Waterways Transportation Artery.” 

Presented at the Cooperative Leadership Conference, January 23, Palm Springs, CA. Accessed 

March 4, 2014: 

http://www.growmark.com/sites/CLC/Presentations/MichaelTooheyWaterways.pdf. 

TTX Company. (2013). “TTX-Railcar Pooling Experts.” Accessed December 12, 2013: 

http://www.ttx.com/TTXHome.aspx. 

U.S. Congress. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; Airlines for America; Boeing Company. (2012). Agriculture 

and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-farm-to-fly-report-jan-2012.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2013). “U.S. Billion Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy 

and Bioproducts Industry.” Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework. 

https://www.bioenergykdf.net/content/billiontonupdate.

Union Tank Car Company. (2013). “UTLX The Tank Car People.” Accessed December 12, 

2013: http://www.utlx.com/. 

Westbrooks, C.L. (2005). “Airline Fuel Hedging: An Overview of Hedging Solutions Available 

to Airlines.” The Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research (14:2).

Williams, P.R.D.; Inman, D.; Aden, A.; Heath, G.A. (2009). “Environmental and Sustainability 

Factors Associated With Next-Generation Biofuels in the U.S.: What Do We Really Know?” 

Environmental Science & Technology (43:13); pp. 4763–4775. doi: 10.1021/es900250d.

Wood, M. (30 July 2013). Expeditionary Wing Moves to Commercial Jet Fuel. Accessed 

February 6, 2014: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/30/expeditionary-wingtransitions-to-commercial-jet-fuel.html.